The High Court dismissed the civil revisions challenging the Trial Court's order directing payment of ad-valorem court fee. The Court held that since the suit essentially sought invalidation of a sale deed, full court fee was payable.
Petitions dismissed as they are denuded of merit; order imposing court fee upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.04.2009.
Himmat Singh and others
Petitioners
Versus
Dinanath and others
...Respondents
2. Civil Revision No. 2351 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.04.2009.
Himmat Singh and others
Petitioners
Versus
Ranjit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.
S.D.ANAND, J.
The plaintiffs-petitioners are in revision against the order dated 30.3.2007 vide which the learned Trial Court, while allowing a plea filed in the relevant behalf by defendants-respondents, directed
Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007
-2-
********
the former i.e. plaintiffs-petitioners to pay up the ad-valorem court fee.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that they are “owners in possession of land measuring 139 Kanal 12 Marla of village Nanuana, Cdistrict Sirsa on the basis of Arbitration Award dated 16.09.2003 given by Arbitrator-Hardayal Singh son of Shri Munshi Singh, resident of village Phaggu, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the physical possession of the plaintiff in any manner and further alienating/transferring or creating any charge over the suit property till the disposal of the present suit” on the allegations which may be indicated as under:-
The relevant suit land was owned and possessed by forefathers of the plaintiffs and devolved upon the defendants no.5 to 7 “vide mutation No. 886 and 80 through heritence” Though the plaintiffs have a pre-existing right over that land but defendants no. 5 to 7 (hereinafter referred as “the vendors”) who were habituated to vice, are inclined to alienate that land. A panchayat was convened “wherein it was decided to appoint a sole arbitrator to solve the dispute between the parties, whereupon with the consent of both the parties and Arbitrator namely Hardayal Singh son of Shri Munshi, resident of Phaggu, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa was appointed on 25.08.2003. This consent was also reduced into writing in the presence of both the parties and the witnesses”. The Arbitrator gave
Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007
-3-
an award dated 16.9.2003. The Arbitrator declared plaintiffs owner in possession of Khewat No.133, Khatuni No.214 to 218. The Arbitrator also restrained the defendants No.5 to 7 from transfer, mortgage or creating any cahrge or exchange the land comprised in Khewat No.133, Khatauni No.214 to 218.
The plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the invalidation of sale deed No.2538 dated 28.11.2003 which had been executed by the vendors in favour of defendant no.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as “the vendees”). The allegation in the context was that the impugned transfer was a “result of collusion, fraud and without consideration”.
In the course of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the contesting defendants-respondents raised a plea that Court fee at the market value of the property in suit was leviable in view of the fact that the plaintiffs-petitioners had, infact, challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed No.2538 dated 28.11.2003. The plea was resisted on behalf of the plaintiffspetitioners who argued that they were only asking for the grant of a declaration viz-a-viz their right in the land in suit and nothing beyond that and, thus, ad-valorem court fee was not payable.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order deserves out right invalidation because the essential relief claimed by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein is with regard to the declaration of their pre-existing right since the time of their ancestors. Reliance, in support of the advocated plea, was placed upon Ishwar
Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007
-4-
Vs. Smt. Om Pati and others 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 04 (P&H).
The plea on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be negatived. The reasons therefor are as under:-
The judicial pronouncement relied upon on behalf of the petitioners is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before this Court. In that case, the challenge to the sale deed was limited to the extent that the vendor could not have sold specific Khasra Nos. as he was only a co-sharer in that land alongwith the petitioner therein. The further allegation in the context was that the it was the plaintiff therein who was in possession of the land in suit, as a co-sharer, and on that averment the restraint of defendant therein from dispossessing the plaintiff was applied for. That ruling does not have any applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the plaintiffs-petitioners have not indicated the manner in which they claimed to have existing right in the land in suit. All that they have averred in the context is that their fathers inherited it from their fore-fathers. The exact relationship or degree thereof as between their father and their fore-fathers, is not indicated. The plaintiffs-petitioners herein have made a categorical averment that though they had a pre-existing right in the land in suit as well, their claim was validated by an award of the Arbitrator. It is, thus, evident that the suit in substance is for the invalidation of the impugned sale deed. In such an eventuality, it is apparent that ad-valorem court fee is payable. In support of this inference of mine , reference may be made, with advantage to Anwarul Haq and others Vs. Ist
Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2007
-5-
Additional District Judge, Mau and others 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 515 (Allahabad), Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 78 (P&H) and Mohammad Jameel Khan and others Vs. Mittu Lal and others 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 502 (MP).
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted on any valid score. The petitions are held to be denuded of merit and are ordered to be dismissed.
April 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether ad-valorem court fee is leviable when a suit includes a challenge to a sale deed alongside a declaration of title?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ishwar Vs. Smt. Om Pati and othersDistinguished¶35
Ishwar Vs. Smt. Om Pati and others 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 04 (P&H)
Anwarul Haq and others Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Mau and othersRelied on¶41
Anwarul Haq and others Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Mau and others 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 515 (Allahabad)
Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh SinghReferred¶45
Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 78 (P&H)
Mohammad Jameel Khan and others Vs. Mittu Lal and othersReferred¶45
Mohammad Jameel Khan and others Vs. Mittu Lal and others 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 502 (MP)
Himmat Singh and others
Dinanath and others
Ranjit Singh and others
S.D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
